The Six Sigma quality improvement process is a systematic, scientific, fact-based methodology. This rigorous process leaves no room for vagueness, and it focuses not only on defining the problem, but implementing a solution as well. Six Sigma project teams are typically made up of the best and brightest of an organization’s employees who receive extensive training in the methodology and supervision from Six Sigma experts.
Yet in spite of all of these advantages, a high number of Six Sigma projects fail.
What’s Wrong with Six Sigma
According to a study in the Wall Street Journal, nearly 60% of all corporate Six Sigma initiatives fail to consistently meet their objectives. The study focused on large companies over a five-year period. The projects typically included teams of 10 to 18 members who were directed by a Six Sigma expert. The study uncovered not only high failure rates, but also revealed that failed Six Sigma projects followed a general three-phase pattern.
This pattern for failing Six Sigma projects includes:
- At first, quality improvement teams worked hard to meet the demands of the Six Sigma project. With the guidance and resources provided by the Six Sigma expert, and under the watchful eye of leadership, these teams worked diligently to implement their initiatives, met their objectives and were rewarded accordingly.
- After initial success, the Six Sigma expert was taken away to work on another project and management turned its attention elsewhere. Without the guidance of a Six Sigma expert to help prioritize their actions, the teams lost their way. They became unable to set new quality goals, spent too much time on improvement projects and began neglecting other responsibilities.
- With no direction from a Six Sigma expert, no progress in making future improvements and no idea how to move forward, discouragement set in and teams stopped caring about their assigned initiatives. As a result, project teams frequently returned to the old way of doing things and felt pressured to report inflated improvement numbers to create the appearance of achievement.
There is Hope For Your Six Sigma Project
The news is not all bad, of course. Careful examination of this pattern reveals the simple changes required to make teams more successful and improvements more sustainable.
- Expert help– Extending the Six Sigma expert’s involvement with the team helps ensure that the project team remains motivated and gains are maintained.
- Connect projects with performance reviews– When employee evaluations and raises are tied to the performance of their Six Sigma team, employees are more likely to stick with innovations rather than abandoning them when their novelty wears off.
- Make the team the right size– The optimal size for a project team is between six and nine members. A larger team has a greater potential for conflict and more difficulty agreeing on a course of action.
- Leadership participation– When upper management is directly involved in a Six Sigma project, team members become more committed and leadership is better able to evaluate the importance and viability of a project.
The advanced statistical analysis, sophisticated diagnostic tools and rigorous metrics of the Six Sigma methodology alone do not guarantee success. Six Sigma success relies heavily on human factors. Project teams are more likely to make significant and lasting improvement when the team receives extended expert support, meaningful motivation and participation by management.